Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Hate Speech Public Consultation

  • 09-12-2019 1:12am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,042 ✭✭✭ 1800_Ladladlad


    This post is a bit rushed but anyway. The department for justice and equality is consulting with the public about how reviewing Ireland’s legislation on "hate speech", and how this area can be improved.


    I wasn't aware of this until yesterday so I thought I would post it on here so that if there was people unaware of it and would like to have there say.

    Deadline is December 13th

    Please click Here

    I think it's dangerous bringing in hate speech laws and that this could be used as a way of politicians removing their ideological opponents from the marketplace of ideas. Im worried this would create protected religious groups or ethnic minorities from any criticism. In a generation consisting of the hysterically outraged and progressives, both online and in public, the meaning of words is context-dependent. Offending someone is not a crime.

    Im expecting the usual bolloxogy “you're confusing the right to free speech with the imagined 'right' to speech free of consequences."


«13456785

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,423 ✭✭✭ Berties_Horse


    Pavee Point would dine out on such legislation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,796 ✭✭✭✭ hatrickpatrick


    Freedom of speech and speech free of consequences are the same thing. If one fears consequences of speaking their mind, then they are not truly free to speak it. The law shouldn't criminalise any political or ideological speech, and indeed society shouldn't penalise anyone for speaking their mind about political policy or ideology. To do so is to dilute democracy itself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,407 ✭✭✭✭ Eric Cartman


    Pavee Point would dine out on such legislation.

    Theyll try use it to strangle the media from reporting on serious crimes


  • Registered Users Posts: 545 ✭✭✭ CageWager


    Who gets to define what constitutes hate? (Both now and in the future).

    See you all in the gulag.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭ suicide_circus


    thanks for that, i wrote them a stinker.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,446 ✭✭✭✭ RobbingBandit


    Open to blatant manipulation and exploitation with silly stuff like this


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭ Irish Guitarist


    Hate speech my arse. Criminals in Ireland barely get punished for actual crimes where victims are physically injured or worse. That's okay though as long as it's just white people attacking other white people and they don't hurt anyones feelings.

    And look at the way hate speech is handled in Britain. About a year ago a boy was killed in a hit and run. As far as I know the driver was never prosecuted. The police put greater effort into dragging a 17 year old girl into court who had posted rap lyrics on her Instagram page as a tribute to this boy because the lyrics contained the word 'nigga'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,242 ✭✭✭✭ TheValeyard


    Legislation like this is a direct threat to democracy and people expressing an opinion. Existing laws can already deal with such issues.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭ vladmydad


    If you read the proposal you’ll see it’s all based on the perception of the “victim”. If someone “feels” offended by what you’ve said then it’s a crime. Which is obviously terrifying. They really haven’t thought this through and the potential for abusing this legislation is enormous. It would give a massive weapon to every NGO and pressure group in the country.

    You know all those nasty hyper offended people online, who shout racism sexism etc every 10 seconds, well this legislation would be like giving them a veto on all speech in this country.

    There was even a mention of removing the burden of proof, meaning you are guilty until proven innocent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭ Phoebas


    How many people will spend hours on this thread and others on this site complaining that they're being silenced by the state, but who won't actually make a submission now when they have a chance?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭ mickuhaha


    Freedom of speech and speech free of consequences are the same thing. If one fears consequences of speaking their mind, then they are not truly free to speak it. The law shouldn't criminalise any political or ideological speech, and indeed society shouldn't penalise anyone for speaking their mind about political policy or ideology. To do so is to dilute democracy itself.

    Well said. Free speech includes expressions that might offend or upset people in the interest of learning and finding truth.

    I am sure Aristotle's ideas upset, angered and offended alot of people and their beliefs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭ suicide_circus


    Hate Speech laws are the genetic descendants of blasphemy laws. We got rid of the blasphemy crap in the 2018 referendum and here they go trying to introduce more unenforceable wholly subjective ideologically driven sh1te.

    The word hate has no place in legislation. Imagine having a law based on an objective understanding of the word "Love" - there is no such thing. There are as many definitions of love as there are people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 343 ✭✭ TwoMonthsOff




  • Registered Users Posts: 15,161 ✭✭✭✭ KKV


    Cheers for the link OP. I just made a submission.


    The gist of my points where that I felt the law is already robust enough (albeit not enforced) and adding new laws to be seen to be doing something doesn't actually help. However, on the basis of hate speech itself, I feel any descriptions of a person/people that are factual shouldn't be described as hate speech anyway.

    (ie; if a traveller steals from a shop and the Gardai are looking for him, telling the public he's a traveller, rather than an actual description, probably doesn't help and is a needless dig. However, if the person is black, then not mentioning that he's black, for fear of being viewed as a racist, is counter-productive and describing someone in a factual manner should never be considered hate speech).


    Naturally, wandering down the road calling people knackers and n/ggers all day is a whole separate thing, but I'm fairly confident we have abusive language, threatening behaviour, intimidation etc. already well covered (albeit, as above, not actually enforced).


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,177 Ironicname


    I think the ability to critique and voice your dissatisfaction about certain social and societal acceptances is vital.

    However, calling for violence or violent suppression should absolutely be legislated for.

    Everyone should have their say, but laws telling people how they must feel or else feel the wrath of punishment is contravening of what hate speech is.

    If I disagree vehemently about certain common acceptances and am willing to vocalise those thoughts in a respectful and factual matter, that should not be hate speech.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ US2


    Surely what constitutes as hate speech has to be made clear before such a law comes in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭ Hector Savage


    Ireland bringing back the blasphemy law.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ US2


    Ireland bringing back the blasphemy law.

    This one will only cover a certain religion though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭ Hector Savage


    US2 wrote: »
    This one will only cover a certain religion though.

    of course, or criticizing immigration, and the "liberals" will lap it up ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭ Phoebas


    US2 wrote: »
    Surely what constitutes as hate speech has to be made clear before such a law comes in.

    The law came in in 1989.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,383 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Manach


    Thanks for OP for highlighting this. Free speech the core element of a society and as such political "hate" speech legislation is the state attempt to immunise itself from criticism and instill a culture of conformatism.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ US2


    Phoebas wrote: »
    The law came in in 1989.

    "Hate speech" wasn't even a phrase in 1989. Hate speech is to silence criticism of islam or open border immigration and has only recently come about.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭ suicide_circus


    Pavee Point would dine out on such legislation.

    you could probably add the islamic cultural centre and iona institute to that list in time


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,786 ✭✭✭✭ Annasopra


    US2 wrote: »
    Surely what constitutes as hate speech has to be made clear before such a law comes in.

    The point of a law is to make it clear!!!

    Apparently a "normal" woman is a busty blonde sexy page 3 model who wears make-up, short skirts and red lipsticks and has pouty lips.  Who knew. 👀😏

    ******

    "Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common"



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,786 ✭✭✭✭ Annasopra


    Phoebas wrote: »
    The law came in in 1989.

    Very few prosecutions.

    The guy who set up the facebook page “Promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait” should have been prosecuted in my opinion

    Apparently a "normal" woman is a busty blonde sexy page 3 model who wears make-up, short skirts and red lipsticks and has pouty lips.  Who knew. 👀😏

    ******

    "Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common"



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ US2


    The point of a law is to make it clear!!!

    If someone deems something offensive its hate speech, not clear at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,786 ✭✭✭✭ Annasopra


    US2 wrote: »
    If someone deems something offensive its hate speech, not clear at all.

    If there is a law on hate speech the law will define it.

    Apparently a "normal" woman is a busty blonde sexy page 3 model who wears make-up, short skirts and red lipsticks and has pouty lips.  Who knew. 👀😏

    ******

    "Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common"



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ US2


    If there is a law on hate speech the law will define it.

    The UK hate speech law doesn't define anything other than if someone finds something offensive you can be prosecuted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,478 ✭✭✭✭ DrumSteve


    Hate Speech is a bit 1984 for my liking...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,786 ✭✭✭✭ Annasopra


    US2 wrote: »
    The UK hate speech law doesn't define anything other than if someone finds something offensive you can be prosecuted.

    We are not the uk

    Theres plenty of definitions of hate speech out there if you look

    Apparently a "normal" woman is a busty blonde sexy page 3 model who wears make-up, short skirts and red lipsticks and has pouty lips.  Who knew. 👀😏

    ******

    "Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common"



Advertisement